Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Planted Tank Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

OR

Log-in

User Name

Password

Remember Me?

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically retrieve titles from external links

Topic Review (Newest First)

11-22-2016 10:21 PM

redchigh

A low tech, liberally stocked, well-established tank with a substrate rich in organic matter and biological activity has more CO2 than most people expect.
Fish produce co2.
Aerobic bacteria (in the substrate, particularly) produce a lot of co2.

The problem imo is people over-filter tanks- all the surface agitation drives the co2 out.
I've had heavily plantedunfiltered tanks, set up in windowsills and generous supplemental light do amazing things, with much less algae than you'd assume.
I speculate it was because of the naturally produced co2

03-13-2016 06:04 PM

patfat

@veo88
Here's a big list of low light hardy plants

01-13-2016 12:22 AM

JJ09

This was really interesting. I just used the list for inspiration- but looking up many plants on the side, to see if they need C02 (I don't add it) and what they look like in different conditions. So many I was at first interested in I don't think will do well for me at all. I don't have a PAR meter, but judging by the growth habit of my plants I think I actually have med light, or low/med perhaps...

Can anyone tell me what its like growing Aponogeton Rigidifolius in low tech med light? I saw it on the list, but what I read elsewhere online says it demands high light. I really love the look of this plant and if it has slow growth or doesn't get as big when in lower light/no C02, I'm okay w/that. It wouldn't take over...

The list should be seen as an opinion, which is not necessarily correct. For example, HC- Hemianthus callitrichoides will not grow well at all without CO2 and with low light. And, many of the stem plants listed will grow, but will be a big disappointment, with low light and no CO2 or Excel.

I was looking through this thread for some stem plant recommendations. Like you mention, I have tried a couple of stem plants, most recently Rotala indica, which just hasn't grown well, or much at all. I have a 20 long with a Stingray Finnex, no co2, following Barr's fertilization guide. Any suggestions for a stem plant that wouldn't be a disappointment? Thanks!

Also, consider that under low CO2 concentrations, the plant needs to use mechanisms that concentrate carbon, or extract carbon from carbonates. Both of these require more energy, thus you get less sugar produced per quantity of electrons hitting the plant.

Thanks mattinmd, that's a really useful post, and this is the piece of understanding I was missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattinmd

If you start digging into a biology text you'll get more into the specific reactions of photosynthesis, but that's a very "looking at the trees not the forest" perspective.

This is exactly the problem I had, I tried to gather the information from the wikipedia page to refresh my understanding, but I got so bogged down in details that I was missing the basics.

09-18-2015 06:04 PM

mattinmd

Understood... I was just trying to give a basic explanation that should be understandable to most and give the correct overall idea.

If you start digging into a biology text you'll get more into the specific reactions of photosynthesis, but that's a very "looking at the trees not the forest" perspective.

Pretty much all texts that cover photosynthesis either:

a) Get technically deep really fast into the specific mechanisms and reactions going on. Most biology/botany books or research papers do this.
or
b) Cover it at the same simplistic level I did above (light+water+co2 = sugar + O2), and move on to other topics. Most gardening books do this, right next to the one paragraph discussion of fertilizers. Elementary school science texts also cover it at a similar level.

Regardless, given the general concepts, you could easily grab a decent biology text book and get into the specifics of photosynthesis...

There is nothing wrong in needing a book to find out about that basic understanding though.

09-18-2015 05:38 PM

mattinmd

You shouldn't need a book... Just a basic understanding of photosynthesis should tell you that light is useless to a plant without CO2 and H2O...

Photosynthesis uses energy from light to break down CO2 (or in some cases carbonate) and H2O, and re-bind the carbon and hydrogen together into sugars, and releases the oxygen. Thus this reaction can be limited by any of the three required materials.

In terrestrial plants, CO2 is never an issue as it is abundant in air, and generally lack of water causes other more major problems for a plant. Thus, terrestrial gardeners tend to view photosynthesis as entirely light driven, as it is the only practical limiting factor.

In aquatic plants, water is never an issue, but CO2 is poorly soluble in water, and is quite often a major limiting factor if there is sufficient light.

Also, consider that under low CO2 concentrations, the plant needs to use mechanisms that concentrate carbon, or extract carbon from carbonates. Both of these require more energy, thus you get less sugar produced per quantity of electrons hitting the plant.

Also, plants need less light if they have a good amount of CO2 in the water, so plants that do well with low light for people using CO2, may do poorly for people who don't use CO2. It is a little more complicated than the list here suggests it is.

Just wondering, is that from your own observations or have you read it somewhere? If so could you post a link or the name of the book, just interested to know how that works since I thought light drove everything.

Thanks

08-05-2015 03:18 AM

mattinmd

I would agree there is quite a range of light tolerance on that list.. I've always taken it as "plants that someone managed to make work in low tech", and not strictly low light...

I've had good luck with rotala sp. green and rotala colorata in my 10 gallon tank at 38 PAR.. I've had bad luck with them in my main tank at 28 PAR, at least the ones my mollies didn't chew on end up growing weird.

There's a huge amount of variation in what people will call "low light" and "good growth" as Hoppy mentioned.. but there's also variation in the correct identification of plants which may be corrupting that list.

Was that HC really hemianthus callitrichoides, or did someone have a different plant like Hemianthus glomeratus and mistake the name? Or have Monte Carlo and fail to identify the difference (ok, monte carlo is newer than this list AFAIK, so maybe that isn't it).

In fact, it's really odd that HC, aka dwarf baby tears, is on that list, but HG, aka baby tears and a much less demanding plant, isn't...

Another issue maybe the perception some may think their low tech tank is low light while they effectively have medium or higher light.

Michel.

That was a major problem when virtually no one used PAR meters to find out how much light they really had. And, the list came from that period of time. Also, plants need less light if they have a good amount of CO2 in the water, so plants that do well with low light for people using CO2, may do poorly for people who don't use CO2. It is a little more complicated than the list here suggests it is.

08-04-2015 06:24 PM

micheljq

I think anubias could grow, slowly, with just the natural light in a house.

Egeria densa, is really, really undemanding, it did grow up like mad in my low light tank.

A lof of crypts are quite forgiving.

Ceratopteris thalictroides too, in my low light tank, was growing like mad and doing baby plants all the time, and it was rooted to the bottom, not even floating.

Maybe it was already told, i did not look at all the posts.

However i do have some issues with some plants in the list in post no. 258.

Bacopa caroliniana is not a low light plant, it will just grow leggy and ugly, if at all.
Bacopa monnieri too.
Hygrophila polysperma was struggling in my low light tank and i lost it.
Same for ludwigia repens, struggling, ugly, full of algae.
Rotala rotundifolia same as ludwigia repens in low light in my tank.
Cabomba caroliniana requires a minimum of light, hardly a low light plant, limnophila sessiflora would be better, less demanding, and the look very similar.
Hydrocotyle leucocephala, yes if floating but not floating in low light, it did die.
Riccia fluitans, floating yes, not floating i doubt it.

From my little experience for what it is worth. My low light tank was a 24" high one with one led fixture Beamswork third generation (121 - 0,2w leds 10000K). It did ran for 8 months.

Another issue maybe the perception some may think their low tech tank is low light while they effectively have medium or higher light.

Michel.

08-03-2015 07:27 PM

jblah

Thanks for making this list. Exactly what I was looking for.

07-13-2015 12:50 PM

GadgetGirl

Being as this is a low light plant list in the low tech forum, I don't think it would be that difficult, for an expert, that is. Presumably no one here would be using CO2.

How about developing a list of plants in order of general light tolerance starting from the lowest?

Java Moss
All Anubias
All Java Fern
Lotus?
?

It would be difficult to develop that list. For one thing, CO2 lowers the light needs of most plants - high CO2 allows the plants to grow with less light than it takes with little CO2. To make a usable list we would have to agree on what "low light" means, what amount of CO2 the list is based on, and what we consider as "good" growth for a plant. And, there are hundreds of different plants to consider.

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.